U P State Road Transport Corporation Vs Jitender Kumar Rana & Anr (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that while determining compensation for injuries suffered in the road accident only documentary evidence in form of Income Tax Return in support of the claim of income is sufficient.
Facts-
The Claimant along with his friends was coming from Allahabad to Delhi in a bus driven by Shri Ravinder Kumar Dwivedi and owned by the UPSRTC. Notably, the driver of the bus was driving the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of which, the bus collided with another Roadways Bus. The Claimant was sitting on the window seat behind the driver near the emergency gate. The emergency gate was not properly bolted/fixed. In the accident, the Claimant sustained grievous injury. The right hand of the claimant was amputated till the shoulder. The Claimant pleaded that he was working as a typist for various advocates at the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Thus, the claimant filed his claim seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the road accident.
Based on the evidence led before it, the learned Tribunal has held that the claimant had been able to prove that the accident had taken place due to the Offending Bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. Learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 47,63,379/-.
Conclusion-
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalpanaraj v. T.N. State Transport Corpn. has held that even if the only documentary evidence available in support of the claim of income is an Income Tax Return, it is sufficient and must be given due weightage.
In the present case, the learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the Income Tax Return of the Claimant proximate to the date of the accident to determine his income. The same cannot be faulted.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. has held that where the deceased was self-employed or working on a fixed salary and was between the age of 40 to 50 years at the time of the accident, an addition of only 25% is to be made for the purposes of computation of the loss of future prospects to the income.
In the present case, the Claimant was aged 46 years at the time of the accident. He was self-employed and working as a Typist. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in not taking into account the future prospects of the increase in the income while determining the compensation payable to the Claimant on account of loss of income due to permanent disability. There has to be an addition of 25% to the income of the claimant on account of the future prospects.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. These appeals have been filed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UPSRTC’) and the Claimant-Shri Jitender Kumar Rana, respectively challenging the Award dated 05.09.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in MAC No. 205/2013 (New MAC No. 282/2016) titled Sh. Jitender Kumar Rana v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Dwivedi & Anr..
2. As the appeals challenge the same Award, they are being considered and disposed of by way of this common judgment.
Background Facts:
3. Before the learned Tribunal, it was the case of the Claimant, that is, the appellant in MAC APP. 1131/2017, that on 27.06.2013 at 30 a.m., he along with his friends was coming from Allahabad to Delhi in a bus bearing registration no. UP-70DT-0132 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Offending Bus’) driven by Shri Ravi nder Kumar Dwivedi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Driver’) and owned by the UPSRTC- appellant in the MAC APP. 1092/2017. It was stated that the driver of the Offending Bus was driving the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, when the said Offending Bus reached near Mourya Petrol Pump, PS Bichhua, Mainpuri, Eta, Uttar Pradesh, it collided with another Roadways Bus, with the other bus scratching past the Offending Bus. The Claimant was sitting on the window seat behind the driver near the emergency gate. The emergency gate was not properly bolted/fixed. In the accident, the Claimant sustained grievous injury. He was taken to the Maharaja Tej Singh District Hospital and thereafter referred to the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. He was later shifted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. An FIR No. 76/13, at Police Station Bichhua, Uttar Pradesh was also registered on the complaint filed by the Conductor of the Offending Bus. As a result of the abovementioned accident, the right hand of the claimant was amputated till the shoulder. The Claimant pleaded that he was working as a typist for various advocates at the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He filed his claim seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the road accident.
4. Based on the evidence led before it, the learned Tribunal has held that the claimant had been able to prove that the accident had taken place due to the Offending Bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. The learned Tribunal awarded the following compensation to the Claimant: –
“4 4. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, J am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for the compensation as under:
